to instruct the children under their care, so as to enable them to read and write the Scriptures at the time they arrived at twelve years of age; and he further directed that a copy of the laws (at that time simple and concise) should be used as a school book. Similar provisions were introduced into the laws of Connecticut, and the select men were ordered to see that "none suffer so much barbarism in their families, as to want such learning and instruction." The children were to be "taught the laws against capital offences," as those at Rome were accustomed to commit the twelve tables to memory. These were regulations in the pure spirit of a virtuous republic, which, considering the youth as the property of the state, does not permit a parent to bring up a child in ignorance.

It is the custom in all existing schools to teach children the catechism, the creed, and the more prominent articles of the Christian faith. So far as this instruction goes, it deserves every praise, but the preceptor is too apt to think that this constitutes his whole duty. Herein we apprehend consists a most fatal error, for it is far from sufficient to instil into the minds of youth a knowledge of the forms and ceremonies of religion. Children ought to be made, in early life, to imbibe the fundamental principles of Christianity, and apply them to all that they read of in history, and to all that they may observe of the current affairs of the day. For what is the test of true greatness in a Christian mind? It is loving our neighbour as ourselves, and doing unto others that which we would have others do unto us. The Christian scholar ought to study history in this spirit, and then he would be able to distinguish the real benefactors of the human race from those who have usurped their place. Kings and military conquerors would then sink into insignificance and contempt, while poets and philosophers who have enlightened the human mind, navigators who have discovered unknown worlds, and mechanics who have invented useful tools, would become the only models for imitation. What were Cæsar and Alexander compared with Columbus and Cook? What value to society were all the knights of Christendom compared with a Davey, an Arkwright, and a Watt? The fame of the one class depends on their having shed blood in torrents; the glory of the other class is based on having opened new and inexhaustible sources of human happiness. Which is more worthy of the attention of a Christian pupil in a Christian seminary? In this mode, education ought to proceed, for knowledge, thus conveyed, assumes at once a practical character,and the reasoning faculties are at once developed. Habits of early reflection are thus formed, and the child, instead of halting on the threshold, begins to see not only the right and wrong of actions, but the proximate and remote consequences of actions, and is thus, from the dawn of reason, habituated to test every character, and every opinion, and every deed, by the only unerring standard -the religion of Christ.

We are decidedly of opinion that national education is the proper duty

of the state. Every child, being an infant citizen, about to become useful or injurious to his country, has a clear right to be instructed in his future duties, and if the legislature refuses or neglects to train the youth of the nation up in virtue, we contend that they act most tyrannically if they hang them, when men, for their vices. Parliament vote annually large sums of money for the support of naval and military academies : we do not blame them for the encouragement thus given to the future armed force of the country; but why not extend this principle, and maintain schools for the instruction of the future civil force of the countrythe children of mechanics and labourers? The judges are paid high salaries to pronounce sentence on criminals; why not pay a competent remuneration to persons qualified to teach youth to abstain from crime? Millions have been expended to erect gaols; why not devote an equal amount to building schools? But, alas! the rulers of nations have paid scarcely any attention to the moral and intellectual culture of the popu lation they have reared the people as savages, and then punished them for not being civilized; they have familiarized them with the sight of public executions, and then reproached them with being lawless and blood-thirsty; they have neglected to cultivate the rational principles of action, and then hanged their citizens for obeying the impulses of the animal passions.

Criminal jurisprudence has been hitherto founded on a complete perversion of justice. We define justice to be the reciprocal interchange of equivalents. The sportsman breaks in his dog before he expects him to find game; the huntsman trains his horse before he rides him in the chase; the farmer tills and dresses his land before he expects to reap a crop. Now all these operations are educational, and they involve the idea of justice. Without the previous labour, no beneficial result could be obtained, nor is any indeed ever expected by the sportsman, the huntsman, or the farmer. They might, in fact, as rationally expect that the effect would precede the cause. Why then should we not apply similar principles to human nature? Why should we not recognize the injustice of demanding good order from the ignorant, without teaching them their duties? And if we do admit the injustice of such a system, why not forthwith and energetically insist on the legislature establishing a solid and comprehensive plan of national education?

We have more than once heard a criminal, after sentence, remonstrate with the judge against the infliction of punishment, defending himself on the plea of being ignorant of the law; to which the judges invariably reply: "You were bound to know the law," an answer which we have always felt as most taunting and most unfeeling. How are these poor wretches to learn a system, which it requires the undivided study of a long life to comprehend? And when the judges pronounce sentence, they usually tell the culprit that "he is unfit to live in this world, and must

forthwith prepare for another;" a sentiment most unchristian, as if men too sinful to remain in this wicked world, were in a condition to be launched into eternity.

That severity of punishment is inoperative to repress crime is no new doctrine. It was lamented by the great Lord Coke, in his days. We must endeavour to take away the motives and inducements to crime, by diffusing knowledge, and thus raising the moral standard of the people. We shall close these brief remarks by citing the opinion of Lord Coke, introduced into the Epilogue to his Third Institute.

"True it is that we have found, by woful experience, that it is not frequent punishment that doth prevent like offences; Melior est enim Justitia veré præveniens, quam severe puniens, agreeing with the rule of the physician, for the safety of the body, Præstat cautela, quam medela; and it is a certain rule, that, videbis ea sæpe committi, quæ sæpe vindicantur, those offences are often committed which are often punished; for the frequency of the punishment makes it so familiar, as it is not feared. example, what a lamentable case it is to see so many Christian men and women strangled on that cursed tree of the gallows? insomuch, as if in a large field a man might see together all the Christians that, but in one year, throughout England, came to that untimely and ignominious death-if there were any spark of grace or charity in him, it would make his heart to bleed for pity and compassion.-But the consideration of this preventing justice were worthy of the wisdom of parliament; and in the mean time expert and wise men to make preparation for the same, as the text saith, Ut bene dicat eis Dominus. Blessed shall he be that layeth the first stone of the building, more blessed that proceeds in it, most of all that finisheth it, to the glory of God, and the honour of our king and nation."

A PORTRAIT OF JULIUS CÆSAR, BY A MODERN

PHILOSOPHER.

Ir, after the lapse of eighteen centuries, the truth may be published without offence, a philosopher might, in the following terms, censure Cæsar without calumniating him, and applaud him without exciting his blushes. Cæsar had one predominant passion,-it was the love of glory; and he passed forty years of his life in seeking opportunities to foster and encourage it. His soul, entirely absorbed in ambition, did not open itself to other impulses. He cultivated letters, but he did not love them with enthusiasm, because he had not leisure to become the first orator of Rome. He corrupted the one half of the Roman ladies, but his heart had no concern in the fiery ardour of his senses. In the arms of Cleopatra, he thought of Pompey; and this singular man, who disdained to have a partner in the empire of the world, would have blushed to have been for one instant the slave of a woman.

We must not imagine that Cæsar was born a warrior, as Sophocles and Milton were born poets, for if nature had made him a citizen of Sybaris, he would have been the most voluptuous of men. If in our days he had been born in Pensylvania, he would have been the most inoffensive of quakers, and would not have disturbed the tranquillity of the new world. The moderation with which he conducted himself after his victories, has been highly extolled; but in this he shewed his penetration, not the goodness of his heart. Is it not obvious, that the display of certain virtues is necessary to put in motion the political machine? It was requisite that he should have the appearance of clemency, if he desired, that Rome should forgive him his victories. But what greatness of mind is there in a generosity which follows on the usurpation of supreme power? Nature, while it marked Cæsar with a sublime character, gave him also that spirit of perseverance which renders it useful. He had no sooner begun to reflect than he admired Sylla, hated him, and yet wished to imitate him. At the age of fifteen he formed the project of being dictator. It was thus that the President Montesquieu conceived, in his early youth, the idea of the spirit of laws.

Physical qualities, as well as moral causes, contributed to give strength to his character. Nature, which had made him for command, had given him an air of dignity. He had acquired that soft and insinuating eloquence which is perfectly suited to seduce vulgar minds, and had a powerful influence on the most cultivated. His love of pleasure was a merit with the fair sex; and women, who even in a republic can draw to them the suffrages and attention of men, have the highest importance in degenerate times. The ladies of his age were charmed with the prospect of having a dictator, whom they might subdue by their attractions. In vain did the genius of Cato watch for some time to sustain the liberty of his country. It was unequal to contend with that of Cæsar. Of what avail were the eloquence, the philosophy, and the virtue of this republican, when opposed by a man who had the address to debauch the wife of every citizen whose interest he meant to engage; who, possessing an enthusiasm for glory, wept because, at the age of thirty, he had not conquered the world like Alexander; and who, with the hauteur of a despot, was more desirous to be the first man in a village, than the second in Rome. Cæsar had the good fortune to exist in times of trouble and civil commotions, when the minds of men are put into a ferment, when opportunities of great actions are frequent, when talents are every thing, and those, who can only boast of their virtues, are nothing. If he had lived an hundred years sooner, he would have been no more than an obscure villain, and, instead of giving laws to the world, would not have been able to produce any confusion in it.

I will here be bold enough to advance an idea, which may appear paradoxical to those who weakly judge of men from what they achieve, and

not from the principle which leads them to act. Nature formed in the same mould Cæsar, Mahomet, Cromwell, and Kouli Khan. They all of them united to genius that profound policy which renders it so powerful. They all of them had an evident superiority over those by whom they were surrounded; they were conscious of this superiority, and they made others conscious of it. They were all of them born subjects, and became fortunate usurpers. Had Cæsar been placed in Persia, he would have made the conquest of India; in Arabia, he would have been the founder of a new religion; in London, he would have stabbed his sovereign, or have procured his assassination under the sanction of the laws. He reigned with glory over men whom he had reduced to be slaves; and under one aspect he is to be considered as a hero-under another, as a monster. But it would be unfortunate indeed for society, if the possession of superior talents gave individuals a right to trouble its repose. Usurpers, accordingly, have flatterers, but no friends; strangers respect them; their subjects complain and submit: it is in their own families that humanity finds her avengers. Cæsar was assassinated by his son,* Mahomet was poisoned by his wife, Kouli Khan was massacred by his nephew, and Cromwell only died in his bed, because his son Richard was a philosopher.

Cæsar, the tyrant of his country; Cæsar, who destroyed the agents of his crimes, if they failed in address; Cæsar, in fine, the husband of every wife, and the wife of every husband; has been accounted a great man by the mob of writers. But it is only the philosopher, who knows how to mark the barrier between celebrity and greatness. The talents of this singular man, and the good fortune which constantly attended him till the moment of his assassination, have concealed the enormity of his actions. Because the successors of Cæsar adopted his name, we must not conclude that they regarded him as a hero; they only considered him as a founder of a monarchy. This name was not the symbol of greatness of mind, but of power. The sovereigns of Rome were afraid to assume the title of king, because it had too much meaning, in the opinion of the people they adopted that of Cæsar, which had no meaning; and thus the Cæsars became greater than kings.

Besides, the sovereigns of Rome assumed the name of Augustus, and we cannot possibly imagine that, by doing so, they proposed to do homage to the memory of that detestable prince. Could that accomplished philosopher, who succeeded Antoninus, take Octavius Cephas for the model of his conduct? What relation is there between the sublime soul of a sovereign, the disciple of Zeno, and the atrocious mind of a tyrant, whose destructive policy had made despicable slaves of those Romans whose fathers he had butchered? Had he any occasion for the name of Augustus? Had he not that of Marcus Aurelius?

I respect highly genius and talents; but, if a Cæsar should arise in any * Brutus was his son by adoption.